OPINION: Leaders should be unafraid to lead

This is the conclusion to a series demonstrating the potential for common ground between progressives and conservatives on labor and environmental issues.

This series has urged New Jersey's educators to turn their defeat into an opportunity: if increases in total pay are precluded, then some reduction in workload should be negotiated. In return for progress on workload, educators could offer to pay (or pay more) for parking on a daily basis, which creates an incentive for carpooling and other cost-saving transit alternatives.

But while the series has urged concrete action, it has served an educational function by demonstrating that activists across the ideological spectrum can cooperate without compromising principles. The last column, for example, mentioned that the Bush administration supported Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s congestion pricing proposal. Interestingly, Ken Livingstone, a supporter of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, implemented congestion pricing when he was mayor of London in 2003. The new revenues were used to improve public transit, thereby reducing costs for low-income households. In that sense, congestion pricing did not contradict Livingstone’s left-wing principles. From a strictly left-wing perspective, it could be argued that activists who resist user fees for driving should be sent to a re-education camp.

At the same time, President George W. Bush did not compromise his conservative values when he endorsed congestion pricing. The horrific congestion stemming from subsidies for driving is the great equalizer; drivers of luxury vehicles must endure the same congestion as folks driving clunkers. Charging user fees for driving is a market-based approach that benefits rich and poor alike.

With regard to work-time reduction, this series has pointed out that social conservatives recommend that parents limit work time to protect family time, whereas organized labor has largely abandoned this issue. Social conservatism, however, is normally trumped by economic conservatism. Many conservatives appeal to family values to win elections, then serve narrow economic interests.

President Ronald Reagan once quipped, “It's true hard work never killed anybody, but I figure, why take the chance?” On a more serious note, Reagan hosted Harvard psychiatrist Armand Nicholi, who addressed the problem of fathers and mothers spending excessive time at work.

If Reagan had applied his personal philosophy to his economic policies, he not only would have boosted productivity, he would have built a bridge to the past. Benjamin Franklin wrote: “If every man and woman would work for four hours each day on something useful, that labor would produce sufficient to procure all the necessaries and comforts of life, want and misery would be banished out of the world and the rest of the 24 hours might be leisure and happiness.”

Marxists talk about class consciousness. As a community college professor, I want to instill community consciousness. Our community can accomplish great things, but only if leadership is forthcoming. It doesn’t cut it when some New Jersey educators privately express support for integrating labor and environment, but then refuse to add their names to the list of activists who have endorsed such an approach. It’s unacceptable for Republicans to replace the worthwhile aspects of their tradition with the foolishness of loudmouth talk-show hosts. Millennials, who will constitute an increasingly large voting bloc, hate wasting time, energy and resources. If Republicans continue on their current path, they will alienate an important constituency.

Leaders from all sides should be unafraid to actually lead.

Dan Aronson is an economics professor at Raritan Valley Community College.